POLL: Should women be allowed to serve in the US Special Forces? (SEAL, etc...)

There are those that say it is very sexist to not allow women to serve as Green Berets in the Army or as Seals in the Navy, and that they are just as strong, tough, and capable as men in everything that Special Ops require...

on the other side, somesay that allowing women in these units will break up team division and create problems for those in the elite military... creating problems for them to focus on the mission and nothing else.

so what do you think? is allowing only men to serve as special ops sexist, or is it logical to preserve our defense?

I like what this guy said about women in Special Ops/combat

people are scared to post? I personally think it wouldn not be worth the cost since not enough would join so they would have to isolate the small amounts of women every night to different buildings, which cost money. Plus, even on birth control, they still can have issues for a week.

No way in hell,

A males body is much more stronger and enduring and able to cope with physical problems that a womans is,

Not being sexist here on stating fact that to be a soldier you need to be strong and enduring and to be special forces you need to be THE BEST OF THE BEST,

And that includes how physically and mentally strong you are,

No Physically to hard for most women (yes i know probably a VERY small minority could). Plus i can imagine a ton of complicated issues up in the middle of a fight/tour...

Sure, go for it.

No way in hell,

A males body is much more stronger and enduring and able to cope with physical problems that a womans is,

Not being sexist here on stating fact that to be a soldier you need to be strong and enduring and to be special forces you need to be THE BEST OF THE BEST,

And that includes how physically and mentally strong you are,

sonofsmeagle

I agree, women can be just as physical strong and mentally strong as men, but most of them are not.

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

No way in hell,

A males body is much more stronger and enduring and able to cope with physical problems that a womans is,

Not being sexist here on stating fact that to be a soldier you need to be strong and enduring and to be special forces you need to be THE BEST OF THE BEST,

And that includes how physically and mentally strong you are,

M4Ntan

I agree, women can be just as physical strong and mentally strong as men, but most of them are not.

Men are designed to be much stronger then Women. Not trying to be sexiest here, as unfortunatly it's just a fact.

Yes, but in terms of qualifications they should be held to the same standards as men.chessmaster1989

lol, damn. by that argument.. no woman would make it.

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

No way in hell,

A males body is much more stronger and enduring and able to cope with physical problems that a womans is,

Not being sexist here on stating fact that to be a soldier you need to be strong and enduring and to be special forces you need to be THE BEST OF THE BEST,

And that includes how physically and mentally strong you are,

I agree, women can be just as physical strong and mentally strong as men, but most of them are not.

i accidentally voted for yes,i meant no.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Yes, but in terms of qualifications they should be held to the same standards as men.Scoob64

lol, damn. by that argument.. no woman would make it.

The men that get into special forces are not even your average type of men.

and the average type of men is generally stronger and has more endurance then the average woman.

The outright ban should not be there, but not for one second should the qualifications change. They don't change for less able men, they shouldn't change for less able women (which is going to be vast majority of them).

If there is an exceptional woman who could do the task of being a special force op, i see no reason why she cannot be allowed to do it.

no, and neither should men

The men that get into special forces are not even your average type of men.

and the average type of men is generally stronger and has more endurance then the average woman.

The outright ban should not be there, but not for one second should the qualifications change. They don't change for less able men, they shouldn't change for less able women (which is going to be vast majority of them).

If there is an exceptional woman who could do the task of being a special force op, i see no reason why she cannot be allowed to do it.

SaudiFury

but just for the sake of argument...

if you do lift the ban, then feminist groups across the nation will be pushing, pushing, and pushing for these standards to be lowered since such standards would be considered "unfair" to even the most fit women.

no, and neither should men

BiancaDK

Yes, but in terms of qualifications they should be held to the same standards as men.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Yes, but in terms of qualifications they should be held to the same standards as men.chaoscougar1

not gonna happen... as i said in an earlier quote, if the ban is lifted, feminists would be ALL over this in order to the requirements for women eased up... as having been in the national guard, i am fully aware that the physical requirements for females is not as harsh as it was for us... fairly certain thats exactly how it would be in the special ops

any one willing to give there life for the man/woman next to them all for it.

Yes, but in terms of qualifications they should be held to the same standards as men.chessmaster1989

What I think.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]

no, and neither should men

TheShadowLord07

shouldnt be replaced by anything/anyone

warfare is almost always fundamentally unethical, discussing what is ethically correct in an unethical setting is just absurd

Yes, but only if they pass the exact same exams

If they can't make the cut, they shouldn't be in.

But if they can do just as well, sure. Why the hell not.

Yes, but only if they pass the exact same exams

If they can't make the cut, they shouldn't be in.

But if they can do just as well, sure. Why the hell not.

Yes, but in terms of qualifications they should be held to the same standards as men.chessmaster1989

Agreed. If they can't meet the requirements, then oh well.

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]

no, and neither should men

BiancaDK

shouldnt be replaced by anything/anyone

warfare is almost always fundamentally unethical, discussing what is ethically correct in an unethical setting is just absurd

They should, but they should be held to all the same physical standards. Even if that's biologically unfair.

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Yes, but in terms of qualifications they should be held to the same standards as men.Scoob64

not gonna happen... as i said in an earlier quote, if the ban is lifted, feminists would be ALL over this in order to the requirements for women eased up... as having been in the national guard, i am fully aware that the physical requirements for females is not as harsh as it was for us... fairly certain thats exactly how it would be in the special ops

but just for the sake of argument...

if you do lift the ban, then feminist groups across the nation will be pushing, pushing, and pushing for these standards to be lowered since such standards would be considered "unfair" to even the most fit women.

Scoob64

just between you and i (and i guess the internet). feminist in this case can cry a river.

Do NOT have to lower standards for something like defense. It is completely absurd to compromise ones military effectiveness in order to appeal to diversity. Sure you got a great diverse group in your army... but some of them, possibly half, can't run or jump or carry as much as the men next to them.

Simply put.

Don't sacrfice effectivness in life and death situations for the appeal of being 'nice'.

Doesn't really matter in the end, as i can't imagine the military, especially frontline people is a job women really want to do anyways.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

Yes, but only if they pass the exact same exams

If they can't make the cut, they shouldn't be in.

But if they can do just as well, sure. Why the hell not.

sonofsmeagle

Couldn't gay relationships start up also

Not all special forces require tank level personal endurance.

Green Berets focus on information and indirect warfare. Hell they would likely love to have some trained woman soldiers to help "blend in"certain war enviroments.

no they shouldnt. they arent built for it naturally plus the ones who actually might qualify might just cause insubormination in the unit due to the males not eaccepting them .

Yes, but in terms of qualifications they should be held to the same standards as men.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

but just for the sake of argument...

if you do lift the ban, then feminist groups across the nation will be pushing, pushing, and pushing for these standards to be lowered since such standards would be considered "unfair" to even the most fit women.

SaudiFury

just between you and i (and i guess the internet). feminist in this case can cry a river.

Do NOT have to lower standards for something like defense. It is completely absurd to compromise ones military effectiveness in order to appeal to diversity. Sure you got a great diverse group in your army... but some of them, possibly half, can't run or jump or carry as much as the men next to them.

Simply put.

Don't sacrfice effectivness in life and death situations for the appeal of being 'nice'.

Doesn't really matter in the end, as i can't imagine the military, especially frontline people is a job women really want to do anyways.

haha, apparently, you have no idea how far being politically correct has gone.

Not the seals or other navy group, women and seamen don't mix in my opinion.

yea if a woman can shave her beard or mustach with me in the shower i say lets go to die!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we need more boootch woman in the ARMS! yea

I'm sorry but it is highly unlikely that a female could pass special forces training while holding her own. A major part of this training is about depending on each other to carry an equal share. I just can't imagine a woman in this pic...

or this one

It doesn't matter anyways cause it will never happen. Woman are barely allowed in combat if they're allowed at all.

if this is allowed, sexual tension between male and female is high. *insert awkward kiss scene*

A man's body is gennerally stronger than that of the women, and that is a noble prerogative.

No one should serve in the military, period.

Though if the military was a good thing then I would say no, women are to stay at home doing their shopping and spring cleaning. :P

No one should serve in the military, period.

Though if the military was a good thing then I would say no, women are to stay at home doing their shopping and spring cleaning. :P

parkurtommo

So you would be happy for your countries military to disappear and then leave your nation vulnerable to attack?

I have talked to people in defence, and this is what they told me about women being in the elite special forces. Apparently, men have a subliminal "protective nature" towards women. That is, if in a combat situation, if a woman is in their section, they are more likely compromise their own safety or the safety of the rest of their comrades, or jepardise the mission, in an attempt to keep the female safe. In essence, its not because of any phycsical limitations, but because women are a distraction.

Thats what Ive been told anyway.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

No one should serve in the military, period.

Though if the military was a good thing then I would say no, women are to stay at home doing their shopping and spring cleaning. :P

1nf4m0us

So you would be happy for your countries military to disappear and then leave your nation vulnerable to attack?

I have talked to people in defence, and this is what they told me about women being in the elite special forces. Apparently, men have a subliminal "protective nature" towards women. That is, if in a combat situation, if a woman is in their section, they are more likely compromise their own safety or the safety of the rest of their comrades, or jepardise the mission, in an attempt to keep the female safe. In essence, its not because of any phycsical limitations, but because women are a distraction.

Thats what Ive been told anyway.

If there was no military (in the world) there wouldn't be any defence nor would there be offence, we wouldn't need defence for the other nations wouldn't have military either. It's just an idea, it's not like it would actually work, the amount of sickly violent patriots is so big it would be impossible to do so.

[QUOTE="1nf4m0us"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

No one should serve in the military, period.

Though if the military was a good thing then I would say no, women are to stay at home doing their shopping and spring cleaning. :P

parkurtommo

So you would be happy for your countries military to disappear and then leave your nation vulnerable to attack?

I have talked to people in defence, and this is what they told me about women being in the elite special forces. Apparently, men have a subliminal "protective nature" towards women. That is, if in a combat situation, if a woman is in their section, they are more likely compromise their own safety or the safety of the rest of their comrades, or jepardise the mission, in an attempt to keep the female safe. In essence, its not because of any phycsical limitations, but because women are a distraction.

Thats what Ive been told anyway.

If there was no military (in the world) there wouldn't be any defence nor would there be offence, we wouldn't need defence for the other nations wouldn't have military either. It's just an idea, it's not like it would actually work, the amount of sickly violent patriots is so big it would be impossible to do so.

Not true. For that to work, there would need to be no aggression in human society. Take the Taliban for example. They arent military. They are a select group of extremist terrorists. Eliminate military forces, and they would have control over their respective regions, and would have the resources and ability to inflict more pain on others.

For your theory to work, there need to be no one fighting, and, no one who wants to fight. But for as long as there are people who would threaten our welfare, we need the military.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

[QUOTE="1nf4m0us"]

So you would be happy for your countries military to disappear and then leave your nation vulnerable to attack?

I have talked to people in defence, and this is what they told me about women being in the elite special forces. Apparently, men have a subliminal "protective nature" towards women. That is, if in a combat situation, if a woman is in their section, they are more likely compromise their own safety or the safety of the rest of their comrades, or jepardise the mission, in an attempt to keep the female safe. In essence, its not because of any phycsical limitations, but because women are a distraction.

Thats what Ive been told anyway.

1nf4m0us

If there was no military (in the world) there wouldn't be any defence nor would there be offence, we wouldn't need defence for the other nations wouldn't have military either. It's just an idea, it's not like it would actually work, the amount of sickly violent patriots is so big it would be impossible to do so.

Not true. For that to work, there would need to be no aggression in human society. Take the Taliban for example. They arent military. They are a select group of extremist terrorists. Eliminate military forces, and they would have control over their respective regions, and would have the resources and ability to inflict more pain on others.

For your theory to work, there need to be no one fighting, and, no one who wants to fight. But for as long as there are people who would threaten our welfare, we need the military.

Exactly, that's why it's just a fantasy, it would never come true. But atleast in my view no one should JOIN the military, the military can exist, but they should be fine with the numbers they have. :P

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"][QUOTE="dercoo"]

Yes, but only if they pass the exact same exams

If they can't make the cut, they shouldn't be in.

But if they can do just as well, sure. Why the hell not.

dercoo

Couldn't gay relationships start up also

Not all special forces require tank level personal endurance.

Green Berets focus on information and indirect warfare. Hell they would likely love to have some trained woman soldiers to help "blend in"certain war enviroments.

gay relationships are not impossible but are far less likely than heterosexual ones in an army scenario,

"Not all special forces require tank level personal endurance" i'm sorry but your arguement just loses there,

You do realise that special forces are THE BEST OF THE BEST in mostly all fields, skills, and abilities, no matter whatmission their going on in a hostile environment theres a good chance they might get trapped behind enemy lines and have to be able to endure the toughest of challengers,

Also the fact that most of the tests that are required to get into a special forces unit require extreme amounts of both mental and physical endurance that the average man doesnt have,

No, women are physically weaker (a fact, not sexism). Special Forces NEED to be EXTREMELY strong and most men that try to join, don't pass the tests. Add the problems of having relationships and you just ****** a mission. I'm fine with women inside Law Enforcement, though (except SWAT teams).